New Twitter, Flickr mobile photo filters may be too little, too late

Trying to ape Instagram seems like a desperate move.

The latest versions of Flickr and Twitter offer Instagram-like filters.

Both Twitter and Flickr have recently updated their iOS apps, adding the ability to apply one-touch, retro-style filters to mobile photos uploaded to their respective services. The features seem like me-too additions after the spectacular rise of Instagram as a top social network. Instagram's success even prompted Facebook to swallow up the service—which generated no revenue and gave away its app and services for free—for a cool $1 billion.

Instagram is at once loved and hated for its signature filters like "Earlybird," which makes the most banal smartphone snaps look like old family photos, or "Nashville," which makes photos look like they were cut from a hip fashion magazine. Users love its ease-of-use, solid collection of one-touch filtered looks, and its ability to easily cross-post photos to other top social networks and blogs, while critics say its lo-fi filters are trite.

If you already use Instagram, the new filter features will likely feel redundant. If you don't care for Instagram-like filters to begin with, you might be wondering why Twitter or Flickr are bothering with such features at all. It all seems like "too little, too late," especially if Twitter and Flickr are hoping to compete with Instagram.

Let's take a brief look at both app updates and their new filtering capabilities.

Filter's the word

Twitter 5.2

Twitter has grafted on some very basic editing features to its native ability to capture an image and post it to a user's Twitter feed. There's a one-touch "magic wand" button that seems like little more than a simple "auto levels" control. If you have a decent image with reasonable white balance, its effects are negligible. If you have a crappy exposure, there's a chance this button might make it a little better. There's also a simple crop tool which allows you to freely crop or constrain the cropping to Instagram's now-ubiquitous square format.

Enlarge/ Twitter has a selection of eight photo filters of dubious quality.

Then you have a choice of eight different filters you can apply. You can swipe left or right to view the filters at full size, or tap the filter button to show all eight options (along with the unfiltered image) at once. The contact sheet selection is actually a nice usability improvement over Instagram, which forces you to choose one at a time.

However, the filters are largely uninspired. The "Cinematic" and "Gritty" options are the only two that seem worth the effort at all. To be fair, these look mostly unlike anything Instagram currently offers.

All these capabilities are powered by Aviary, which offers a photo editing Web app of the same name as well as a mobile SDK that adds its editing capabilities to mobile apps. Despite the breadth of editing options the Aviary SDK includes, Twitter has limited editing to the bare minimum. On the one hand, this emulates Instragram's simplicity. On the other, though, most of what it offers seems of little value.

Flickr 2.0

Flickr has added its own take on photo filters. You can slap on one of 15 different built-in filters that are confusingly named after animals (including, of course, narwhal). The selection of filters looks much better than what Twitter offers, as it includes a wider variety. Some filters include kitschy borders that, unlike Instagram, can't be turned off.

To its credit, Flickr offers many more editing options than Twitter does. Tap the "pencil" icon and you can edit to your heart's content using all the features the Aviary SDK covers: white balance, contrast, cropping, and more. This should appeal more to Flickr's core audience, which leans more toward photo enthusiasts than casual snappers.

Enlarge/ Flickr adds some 15 filters, but also includes a full suite of photo editing controls.

Once you've edited an image, you can share it to Twitter, Facebook (though some bug prevented me from activating Facebook sharing on my iPhone), Tumblr, and e-mail, even as the image uploads to Flickr.

Critically, the updated Flickr app offers a much better browsing interface than previous, half-hearted versions of its iOS app. The presentation is in some ways similar to Instagram's "timeline" scrolling view, and it allows you to mark images as favorites or to leave comments. You can view the overall Flickr stream, photos from your friends, your own photos, and more. This alone captures much more of the Instagram experience than Twitter ever could, which is more about the social aspects of the service than its filters.

Also as important, the app doesn't limit your photos to its own service like Twitter does. This is similar to posting photos with Instagram—you can post images to Twitter, Facebook, Foursquare, Flickr, Tumblr, and e-mail as well as Instagram. Most photo editing apps (on iOS and other platforms) have a similar ability to share images to multiple services; Flickr embraces this, while Twitter does not.

Too little, too late

However, throwing in some photo filters doesn't really make Twitter or Flickr go-to apps for editing and sharing mobile photos. As noted above, Twitter's efforts feel largely half-baked, and I don't think it will pull many users away from Instagram. I also don't believe the new features are going to convince users that have abandoned Twitter's native app for (largely better) competing apps—such as Tweetbot, Twitterrific, Echofon, and HootSuite—to switch back anytime soon.

Flickr's browsing and upload improvements should definitely appeal to long-time users of the service. Its more Instagram-like browsing may attract some new users, but it seems like Flickr largely ceded the casual market to Facebook and Instagram long ago. (And I say this as a $25 per year paid member since 2004.) Given the more photo enthusiast demographic that Flickr still appeals to, the filters are probably less welcome than they would be with Twitter users.

Critically, plenty of other iOS apps offer a wide variety of editing and filtering options, all of which can post photos to Twitter, Flickr, or both. I'd whole-heartedly recommend many of those options over what Twitter and Flickr are offering here. Instead of trying to superficially copy Instagram's style, perhaps Twitter and Flickr both need to evaluate what their respective strengths are (or, as Om Malik put it, ask "what do you stand for?"). Focus on those aspects, iterate and improve the core experience, and skip bolting on me-too features.

Promoted Comments

I am kind of happy to hear of the Flickr app though, it sounds like beyond the filters (which seems to be the focus of this article rather than noting that zombie flickr finally put out what might be a useful app for their service), Flickr is offering a nice tool. Let's imagine you're one of those rare folks that's not really on Facebook all the time but you do want to upload pictures to some public location now and then, what are your options? Twitter has no galleries, image sharing sites like imgur are nifty, but the albums are kind of so-so and the apps offer no editing. Flickr seems like the obvious go-to service if you want to post outside of the social networking diaspora.

I agree in general, and I tried to make clear that Flickr doesn't just have some new Instagram-like filters. I think Flickr would be better served if it got rid of the filters altogether and focused on the core uploading experience, with the Aviary-based editing as a nice optional step. Instead, filters are front-and-center if you are taking new images to upload.

The experience isn't perfect for the demographic of users that I think Flickr will attract, but I do agree it's worlds better than the old 1.x app, which was pretty terrible.

Exactly, it's like the HDR photos that have completely overtaken Flickr in the last few years, yes in a few situations it can be a decent effect, but most of it has zero resemblance to reality when its done. Instagram filters crack me up though, lets take a crappy cell phone pic and make it worse. I just don't get it.

Facebook's purchase of Instagram sort of reminds me of Google's attempt at purchasing Groupon. A simple idea for a website that isn't really unique or all that hard to replicate is going to be copied, and copied quickly. Twitter and Flicker are doing what any company would do - competing to stay relevant.

Instagram had the right idea and cashed out when the opportunity presented itself. An image sharing website with a few post process filters isn't all that difficult to copy.

... I bet the Groupon guys are kicking themselves over not taking Google up on its offer.

It's sufficient to eliminate whatever reasons for using Instagram there may be. Filters? Fine.

I don't often see this noted, but Instagram is actually used to a considerable extent as a chat service, particularly by kids, especially if mom and dad aren't keeping an eye on it. It's a sort of side-channel for exchanging messages, from what I've seen.

So I don't think it's filters that are keeping people on Instagram. And if Instagram's dominance erodes, it won't be because other sites have filters.

Exactly, it's like the HDR photos that have completely overtaken Flickr in the last few years, yes in a few situations it can be a decent effect, but most of it has zero resemblance to reality when its done. Instagram filters crack me up though, lets take a crappy cell phone pic and make it worse. I just don't get it.

Sigh.

If it's such a crappy photo, is anyone really making it worse? This is a case in which such a dismissive attitude is rather self-defeating. I would think it's obvious that nobody using Instagram is concerned with "reality," or what any judge of art has to say about their meal, their dog, their boyfriend, or their girls' night out.

Google even got into the game with "Snapseed" Which they released and it was on the AndroidPalooza article recently on Ars.

Google bought out Nik Software. So now all the good products Nik produced can go in the trashbin and die like all the other good products google can't integrate properly. And Google+ is the easier social network for that program to share with obviously.

There are dozens of apps that can slap a filter on a photo, which can then be shared however you desire. I happen to use Fhotoroom to crop, adjust colour/contrast/sharpness and perhaps add a limited blur or effect filter - it's a nice and easy way to have your photos say something more than "my camera saw these photons".

However although a few people I know are on Instagram, just about EVERYBODY I know uses Facebook. Why would I share such an image on Instagram instead of FB??

Personally, if I want my photos to look geinuinely "retro" I pull out the app Pixel Heritage. Emulates half a dozen Nokia cameraphones from 2002-2006, and you can add FX like dust, noise or lens scratches.

Editorializing in the title wasn't needed... I mean it got me to click through, but the content was a bit trashy. It's a poorly postulated opinion that's not really supported by analysis. This is *exactly* what Twitter and Flickr SHOULD do in answer to Facebook's acquisition of Instagram. Calling it too little, too late is rather ignorant, and clearly linkbait.

Editorializing in the title wasn't needed... I mean it got me to click through, but the content was a bit trashy. It's a poorly postulated opinion that's not really supported by analysis. This is *exactly* what Twitter and Flickr SHOULD do in answer to Facebook's acquisition of Instagram. Calling it too little, too late is rather ignorant, and clearly linkbait.

All said, well done Chris, you did your job.

Totally unjustified. It was a good article and despite my pithy comment earlier is an interesting development. I am hoping that flickr somehow makes a comeback even though the vast majority of users have moved on .

I think the main reason, as reported and implied by TheVerge, is that Facebook/Instagram removed card support. It use to be that on twitter if someone shares a photo from instagram it would automatically show up in a card-like it was embedded in the tweet. Instagram removed that, and twitter wanted a way for its users to share filter photos inline.

Not everyone is trying to be artistic by applying filters. It's a cool affect. Most people know that their cellphoes dont take the best quality photos. Instagram is about sharing experiences, and the filters can apply a certain tone to a picture. Not everyone is a amateur photographer, they just want to spice up their photos. It's seems like 90% of criticisms of instagram is missing the point.

Uh, nope, criticism is spot on. There are far too many ugly retro pics on Facebook from Instagram where I just think "sigh, just wish I could see the original picture." The retro filter would be OK if it wasn't overused so damn much. A real film picture from the early 80's and prior, scanned in preserving the original look = authentic, nostalgic and genuinely sentimental. Some dumb smart phone pic taken three days ago and crap-filtered = cheesy and phony.

That's the thing, it's not about the quality of the photos. If it was, Instagram wouldn't have sold for a billion dollars. It's about the experience and the people you follow.

Yes there bad photos on instagram just like there are bad photos on the Internet. For most people their reaction of a picture isnt about the quality of the picture, it's about who is in it, what they are doing. Filters affect the tone of photos.

If you want authentic photos I understand. There are plenty of forums for photography and I'm certain that they don't use instagram or pictures taken with cellphones.

I hope this doesn't mean an influx of filtered photos of food, sunsets, and attractive young people, which is basically the core of Instagram. Flickr actually has some really quality photos which aren't limited by being shot exclusively on iOS/Android phones.

Not to mention, Flickr has communities and discussions, and its users often get together in real life.

EDIT: I should mention I'm not against Instagram. But Instagram isn't about the photography; it's about the social networking/sharing of your life. Which is fine.

I would think it's obvious that nobody using Instagram is concerned with "reality," or what any judge of art has to say about their meal, their dog, their boyfriend, or their girls' night out.

I think it's exactly the opposite. If they weren't concerned about what people thought of their dog, boyfriend, or their breakfast they wouldn't but publishing their photos online. Regardless, in hindsight, it will all seem really silly - a brief era where people with $500+ cellphones that have multi-megapixel sensors and better image quality than yesteryear's point and shoots decided to all apply the same subset of boring yet stylish filters to degrade the quality in the interest of things looking "retro".

I'm no photography purist, but what I think irks me about this isn't that people are applying the filters, but that everyone is applying the same damn filter to everything. I mean comeon, just because you have a 5 gallon bucket of marshmallow Fluff in your kitchen and you think Fluff makes things taste awesome doesn't mean that you should really slather it on everything you eat.

I am kind of happy to hear of the Flickr app though, it sounds like beyond the filters (which seems to be the focus of this article rather than noting that zombie flickr finally put out what might be a useful app for their service), Flickr is offering a nice tool. Let's imagine you're one of those rare folks that's not really on Facebook all the time but you do want to upload pictures to some public location now and then, what are your options? Twitter has no galleries, image sharing sites like imgur are nifty, but the albums are kind of so-so and the apps offer no editing. Flickr seems like the obvious go-to service if you want to post outside of the social networking diaspora.

I am kind of happy to hear of the Flickr app though, it sounds like beyond the filters (which seems to be the focus of this article rather than noting that zombie flickr finally put out what might be a useful app for their service), Flickr is offering a nice tool. Let's imagine you're one of those rare folks that's not really on Facebook all the time but you do want to upload pictures to some public location now and then, what are your options? Twitter has no galleries, image sharing sites like imgur are nifty, but the albums are kind of so-so and the apps offer no editing. Flickr seems like the obvious go-to service if you want to post outside of the social networking diaspora.

I agree in general, and I tried to make clear that Flickr doesn't just have some new Instagram-like filters. I think Flickr would be better served if it got rid of the filters altogether and focused on the core uploading experience, with the Aviary-based editing as a nice optional step. Instead, filters are front-and-center if you are taking new images to upload.

The experience isn't perfect for the demographic of users that I think Flickr will attract, but I do agree it's worlds better than the old 1.x app, which was pretty terrible.

Do these apps save the effects / filters etc to the image taken by the camera? Or do they make a copy?

I hope they make copies, and people save the basic image - if only for posterity. Hope everyone doing this saves unfettered copies - I'd hate to look back on my youth and have the only views of them to be blurry, in black and white, lens flared etc.

I'd hate to look back on my youth and have the only views of them to be blurry, in black and white, lens flared etc.

Ironically, as I look back on my (Polaroid/Instamatic captured) youth, that's pretty much the view I have. And I'm none-the-worse for it, at least as near as I can see. The memories still flow, and the feelings are present.

I have a good camera and some of the best glass (as we photo snobs sometimes refer to lenses) that money can buy. I am more than able to produce tack sharp, perfectly exposed pablum. (And a few images I like along the way). Sometimes, however, it's the camera you have with you, iPhone 4S in my case. The immediacy of the snapshot and ability to rapidly share the moment, filtered to suit, take precedence over hours of fiddling until I print and hang it on a wall, largely unnoticed as the world passes by. I prefer tuning (and altering) my images with Snapseed, Gridditor or Photogene to the pre-rolled filters in Instragram but I welcome the pocket darkroom to my gadget bag. Some of my favorite photos of the past two years were produced using this imaging workflow. (See, another pro/snob term, I can talk with the big boys as well as anyone). It's--get this now--fun!

Like any tool, camera included, filters can be used or abused, but I can't see any technology that allows (and encourages!) more people to take more images as a bad thing. Let's get past the camera club judge fallacy that a photo has to be a tack sharp (a relatively new concept in photography as a whole, but particularly in regards to low-cost snapshot photography), perfect representation of what the eye sees (hint: it isnt anyway) in order to be good. I hated that notion in the days of film, and I still don't concur in the digital age. Photography is as much about feeling as it is seeing.

If this offends your sense of all that is good and right with photography, I'm sorry. Please, don't waste your time looking at my fish wrappings. It's not you for whom I create anyhow. Those people sharing pictures of their friends and cats? They aren't doing it for you either and, believe it or not, they probably aren't harboring illusions about your caring. But those snaps mean something to them, and to their friends and family. And, filters and all, many will still have meaning, and be important to someone, years from now.

And yeah, some of my iPhone 4S, "instagrammed" pictures did get printed (on canvas even), mounted and hung on the wall for my last show. They garnered pretty much the same attention, good and bad, as the more traditional work. And I feel fine.

Like any tool, camera included, filters can be used or abused, but I can't see any technology that allows (and encourages!) more people to take more images as a bad thing. Let's get past the camera club judge fallacy that a photo has to be a tack sharp (a relatively new concept in photography as a whole, but particularly in regards to low-cost snapshot photography), perfect representation of what the eye sees (hint: it isnt anyway) in order to be good. I hated that notion in the days of film, and I still don't concur in the digital age. Photography is as much about feeling as it is seeing.

If this offends your sense of all that is good and right with photography, I'm sorry. Please, don't waste your time looking at my fish wrappings. It's not you for whom I create anyhow. Those people sharing pictures of their friends and cats? They aren't doing it for you either and, believe it or not, they probably aren't harboring illusions about your caring. But those snaps mean something to them, and to their friends and family. And, filters and all, many will still have meaning, and be important to someone, years from now.

Agree wholeheartedly with this. I refused to use digital for years because of my dislike of the cameras I'd used, and also the very snobbish view that I'd spent ages practicing 'proper' photography and now the world and his dog was at it and thinking they were the next Ansel Adams.I persisted in this attitude until I came into some money and could afford a decent DSLR, which quickly became my go-to camera.Now I have a decent smartphone I've always got a camera with me which will produce a good image if I think a bit, so I miss fewer shots due to lack of kit. I suspect I'll be trying the Twitter and Flickr apps at some point, it's an avenue of photography I've never been down before so should be interesting for me.

I am kind of happy to hear of the Flickr app though, it sounds like beyond the filters (which seems to be the focus of this article rather than noting that zombie flickr finally put out what might be a useful app for their service), Flickr is offering a nice tool. Let's imagine you're one of those rare folks that's not really on Facebook all the time but you do want to upload pictures to some public location now and then, what are your options? Twitter has no galleries, image sharing sites like imgur are nifty, but the albums are kind of so-so and the apps offer no editing. Flickr seems like the obvious go-to service if you want to post outside of the social networking diaspora.

I agree in general, and I tried to make clear that Flickr doesn't just have some new Instagram-like filters. I think Flickr would be better served if it got rid of the filters altogether and focused on the core uploading experience, with the Aviary-based editing as a nice optional step. Instead, filters are front-and-center if you are taking new images to upload.

I just downloaded the app, and it does seem quite nice. The filters are the first thing you see when selecting a photo, which I'm OK with so long as the default is "orginal". Hitting "Next" takes you right to the upload dialog. And outside of that filter, the rest of the app seems pretty nice. It was enough to get me to make a Flickr account at least.

I saw the tantalizing "Photo Filters" on/off toggle in the settings, but that disables all editing, not just the filters.

I couldn't care less about mobile photo filters. I don't understand why I don't read complaints about Flickr's Photostream. I hate the Photostream. The Photostream would be okay, if Flickr didn't force account holders to feature it, if instead more options were provided to control how viewers experience your photos.

I know the Photostream confuses people. I've experienced someone writing a comment about one of my photos in a particular Set on Flickr that didn't make sense. Later, I realized the person had seen the next photo in the Photostream, which had nothing to do with the photos in that Set. The person writing the comment didn't even see the organizing that I had done.